You know, my girl has some wonderful, beautiful curves and just a bit of a bellly. Nowhere near even Rubenesque. Yet she feels that because she isn't a size zero she can't really be very attractive. Despite her rejection of feminism she feels the social pressure to look like the gals in many of the retouched paintings.

Don't get me wrong, I dig skinny chicks as well. But there is inherent beauty in the human form and many body types have their own pleasures. This single standard for beauty (which I think is something that has always existed, the standard changes but not the existence of the standard) just breaks my heart.

Ever see a skinny chick belly dance? It just doesn't work without at least some jiggle.

This sort of thing is *interesting* but it certainly doesn't speak about some universal shift in taste, only what is portrayed in certain circles as The One True Beauty. It's like the color cartel that gets together every year in France to decide what is going to be "in" and "out" for the next twelve months so the fashion world can coordinate marketing campaigns.

While there of course have been some adjustments to the standards of beauty in western culture, women like to think they've changed greatly . . . however, going by some of the most well known examples, they really haven't:

While there were of course some differences in some short periods of time or in specific industries (like say the crack whore look of fashion models of the 80's and 90's) - when it comes down to lasting examples of beauty, they're all strikingly similar; defined by an hourglass waist, chesty with hips, and even a similar pose with the legs, appearing to reduce the size of the thighs.

BolloxReader:You know, my girl has some wonderful, beautiful curves and just a bit of a bellly. Nowhere near even Rubenesque. Yet she feels that because she isn't a size zero she can't really be very attractive. Despite her rejection of feminism she feels the social pressure to look like the gals in many of the retouched paintings.

Don't get me wrong, I dig skinny chicks as well. But there is inherent beauty in the human form and many body types have their own pleasures. This single standard for beauty (which I think is something that has always existed, the standard changes but not the existence of the standard) just breaks my heart.

Ever see a skinny chick belly dance? It just doesn't work without at least some jiggle.

This sort of thing is *interesting* but it certainly doesn't speak about some universal shift in taste, only what is portrayed in certain circles as The One True Beauty. It's like the color cartel that gets together every year in France to decide what is going to be "in" and "out" for the next twelve months so the fashion world can coordinate marketing campaigns.

Your girl sounds like she's built like me. I have definitely put on a few pounds since high school, but if it's evenly distributed, it hardly matters. Besides, I have the height thing on my side. But the point is, she's silly if she thinks she has to work herself out to death to be attractive. The secret is to OWN IT.

Also- there's a HUGE difference between emaciated/starving/meth head and plays sports/eats right/is proportionate. 99% of men would of course prefer the latter.

Pics from article very disturbing. No one wants visible ribs on a woman. No one.

MrSteve007:While there of course have been some adjustments to the standards of beauty in western culture, women like to think they've changed greatly . . . however, going by some of the most well known examples, they really haven't:

While there were of course some differences in some short periods of time or in specific industries (like say the crack whore look of fashion models of the 80's and 90's) - when it comes down to lasting examples of beauty, they're all strikingly similar; defined by an hourglass waist, chesty with hips, and even a similar pose with the legs, appearing to reduce the size of the thighs.

Well, yeah, but the big difference is that before 600 years ago women apparently didn't have arms.

MrSteve007:While there of course have been some adjustments to the standards of beauty in western culture, women like to think they've changed greatly . . . however, going by some of the most well known examples, they really haven't:

While there were of course some differences in some short periods of time or in specific industries (like say the crack whore look of fashion models of the 80's and 90's) - when it comes down to lasting examples of beauty, they're all strikingly similar; defined by an hourglass waist, chesty with hips, and even a similar pose with the legs, appearing to reduce the size of the thighs.

Yes, body size/weight is the thing that goes in and out of fashion, not body shape.

Most great beauty icons have the same waist to hip ratio, regardless of whether they're 100 lbs or 170 lbs. Why do so many people fail at understanding body proportions? I've read that most studies on this kinda thing show WHR is a more important factor than body weight, breast size, etc. when evaluating physical attractiveness. It's SCIENCE!!!

toraque:MrSteve007: While there of course have been some adjustments to the standards of beauty in western culture, women like to think they've changed greatly . . . however, going by some of the most well known examples, they really haven't:

While there were of course some differences in some short periods of time or in specific industries (like say the crack whore look of fashion models of the 80's and 90's) - when it comes down to lasting examples of beauty, they're all strikingly similar; defined by an hourglass waist, chesty with hips, and even a similar pose with the legs, appearing to reduce the size of the thighs.

Well, yeah, but the big difference is that before 600 years ago women apparently didn't have arms.

Glad to see evolution caused women to grow arms for child rearing and fixing sammiches.

In almost every example, the original is far superior to the alternative.It's a shame what Hollywood, and the media has done to the self image of women and young girls.There's nothing wrong with a little ......er........flab.....er........extra flesh........mmmmmmm...flesh.I wish young girls could get past the notion that slimmer is better.That's just me, though.

Bonzo_1116:The tits are bigger, and the faces are also changed. The chins are narrower, the lips wider and more smiley, and straight high-bridged Roman/Greek noses were swapped for smaller bridges and a upturned tip.

^ I'm guessing most of you guys who failed to notice this part didn't look past the first thing that jumped out at you. Most of them have much wider mouths now and it was really kind of creepy.

Apparently I'd have been quite above average back in the day. Who knew.

toraque:MrSteve007: While there of course have been some adjustments to the standards of beauty in western culture, women like to think they've changed greatly . . . however, going by some of the most well known examples, they really haven't:

While there were of course some differences in some short periods of time or in specific industries (like say the crack whore look of fashion models of the 80's and 90's) - when it comes down to lasting examples of beauty, they're all strikingly similar; defined by an hourglass waist, chesty with hips, and even a similar pose with the legs, appearing to reduce the size of the thighs.

Well, yeah, but the big difference is that before 600 years ago women apparently didn't have arms.

BolloxReader:You know, my girl has some wonderful, beautiful curves and just a bit of a bellly. Nowhere near even Rubenesque. Yet she feels that because she isn't a size zero she can't really be very attractive. Despite her rejection of feminism she feels the social pressure to look like the gals in many of the retouched paintings.

Don't get me wrong, I dig skinny chicks as well. But there is inherent beauty in the human form and many body types have their own pleasures. This single standard for beauty (which I think is something that has always existed, the standard changes but not the existence of the standard) just breaks my heart.

Ever see a skinny chick belly dance? It just doesn't work without at least some jiggle.

This sort of thing is *interesting* but it certainly doesn't speak about some universal shift in taste, only what is portrayed in certain circles as The One True Beauty. It's like the color cartel that gets together every year in France to decide what is going to be "in" and "out" for the next twelve months so the fashion world can coordinate marketing campaigns.

I can't cherry pick a line from your quote on this phone, but my wife is a skinny belly dance teacher and if you can find a video of Rachel Brice (the guru of American Tribal style) jiggling, I'd like to see it.

TV's Vinnie:The artist has some pretty freaky notions about what a "modern woman" looks like.

[www.nsmbl.nl image 656x494] [24.media.tumblr.com image 340x494]

I should do a study on trendy, deep artists' distorted view of society's distorted view of perfection. Did you see the woman who made a supposedly "life-sized" Barbie to show how ridiculous Barbie's proportions were? What she produced looked nothing like a Barbie.

Lydia_C:hubris73: I didn't realize today's standard of beauty included freakishly long skinny giraffe necks...Maybe next time they can work on getting the proportions right instead of just using a color picker to shave off some fleshtone

Greydog:In almost every example, the original is far superior to the alternative.It's a shame what Hollywood, and the media has done to the self image of women and young girls.There's nothing wrong with a little ......er........flab.....er........extra flesh........mmmmmmm...flesh.I wish young girls could get past the notion that slimmer is better.That's just me, though.

MmmmmmmHmmmmm.

Come get some, junior.

/I just noticed with her arms over the tops of her teats, they look like dick-tips.

This are not well-executed alterations. The "updated" versions look rather creepy, with strange proportions. Some look anorexic, as fat folds turn into skeletal pits when reduced. This is what happens when you botch a skewing job. I think an artist should have just drawn the new versions from scratch instead of tweaking the original paintings.

Pretty-much every picture in the history of time with either the "monochrome except for one element" schtick or an Instagram-like vignette and intentionally naffed-up colors has absolutely zero to do with art.

This. I was embarrassed to see all they did was make voluptuous models scrawny. Perhaps some of them could have gotten boob jobs, although Venus on the half-shell appears to have had one. I felt embarrassed at the National Gallery with my Indian fiance that noticed that all the classic art had women with breasts no larger than an apple, as compared to the depiction in India, which had much more bountiful proportions.

ladyfortuna:Bonzo_1116:The tits are bigger, and the faces are also changed. The chins are narrower, the lips wider and more smiley, and straight high-bridged Roman/Greek noses were swapped for smaller bridges and a upturned tip.

^ I'm guessing most of you guys who failed to notice this part didn't look past the first thing that jumped out at you. Most of them have much wider mouths now and it was really kind of creepy.

Apparently I'd have been quite above average back in the day. Who knew.

Greydog:In almost every example, the original is far superior to the alternative.It's a shame what Hollywood, and the media has done to the self image of women and young girls.There's nothing wrong with a little ......er........flab.....er........extra flesh........mmmmmmm...flesh.I wish young girls could get past the notion that slimmer is better.That's just me, though.

Noting that we have a epidemic of obesity, it seems more like the lesson isn't taking hold at all.

Most of those were not done well, but the Venus de Milo stood out. I showed it to my boyfriend and he said that most guys don't find the bone-skinny look attractive. Of course, he could be pushin for brownie points because I am definite "peasant stock" (e.g. tits 'n hips) and while I am not fat, I am definitely far from boyish-waist flat-chested.

Either way, I think most educated people realize that perceptions of beauty have changed. What a lot of people do not immediately realize is that one standard of beauty doesn't apply all over the world. Like the African tribe with the neck rings. That's just freaky to me, but they see beauty.

/lamely adding the cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"//not fat

megarian:I did nude modeling for a few years in college. The models with the curves always got more and better gigs...especially with figure photography and sculputre.

Also, water is wet.

It's like we're DESTINED to be friends. I took several nude drawing workshops. To this day, I paint better than I draw by a long shot, but it was still fun. Especially drawing that one dude. Can't remember his name, but I still remember what his arse looked like.

Might be fun to nude model now that my back is covered in tattoos. It'd be interesting to see what the students made of them...

kiwimoogle84:megarian: I did nude modeling for a few years in college. The models with the curves always got more and better gigs...especially with figure photography and sculputre.

Also, water is wet.

It's like we're DESTINED to be friends. I took several nude drawing workshops. To this day, I paint better than I draw by a long shot, but it was still fun. Especially drawing that one dude. Can't remember his name, but I still remember what his arse looked like.

Might be fun to nude model now that my back is covered in tattoos. It'd be interesting to see what the students made of them...

You...I like you.

One of my coworkers was tattooed. She was extremely good at gesture drawing-type poses and made pretty good money. The students and other jobs did come up with some pretty awesome stuff, now that I think about it.

It was quite seriously one of the best jobs I have ever had. I was extremely body-paranoid and I got over that pretty quick.